Ged Law – Attorneys at Law

101 Aviation Drive N.

Naples, FL 34104

239-514-5048

Call us now

239-514-5048

 

 

Serving Naples, Marco Island, Bonita Springs, Estero, Ft. Myers and the surrounding areas

21105 Design Parc Lane,

Suite 101

Estero, FL 33928

239-676-7492

Read Our Reviews

Blog

Welcome to my blog

 

Here you can add some text to explain what your blog is about and a bit about you.

Short-Term Vacation Rentals: Florida Appellate Court affirms judgment of trial court in favor of Homeowners.

By gedlaw50486353, Sep 6 2017 01:47AM

The First District Court of Appeal of Florida (“1st DCA”) recently upheld a lower court judgment ruling that short-term vacation rentals do not violate restrictive covenants requiring that they have a residential purpose.

In this case, the Homeowners (Appellees) owned properties in the Santa Monica Beach subdivision of Bay County. Santa Monica Beach Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Acord, 219 So. 3d 111, (Fla. 1st DCA, 2017) The properties were subject to a restrictive covenant which provided

that the land “shall be used only for residential purposes” and that no building on the land could be used for a “ business” nor for purposes of “ public assemblage”. Id at 2. The Association sent letters to the Homeowners in December 2015 stating that the property was being used in violation of the restrictive covenants due to the property becoming a vacation rental and being advertised on VRBO. Id. The Association thereby requested that the Homeowners discontinue their “vacation rental business”. Id at 3.

The Association subsequently filed a complaint alleging that the Homeowners’ properties were being offered and advertised for rent as “public lodging establishments”; Homeowners were required to collect and remit state and local taxes on the rentals; and that Homeowners were licensed to operate the property as a public lodging establishment under a business name. Id at 3. The Homeowners argued that the Association failed to allege the properties were being used for any purpose other than residential. They also argued that the residential use of the property was conclusively established by the Association’s reference to the Florida Statute concerning “public lodging” which refers to lodging as an inherently residential use. Id at 4.

The trial court agreed with the Homeowners and dismissed the complaint stating “the critical inquiry is not the duration of the tenancy, but the character and actual use of the property by those residing thereon.” Id. Further, the Court reasoned that since the proper focus is on the actual use of the property, the nature of that use is not changed from residential to commercial merely because the Homeowners earn income from the rental property or because the property is subject to a regulatory scheme and licensure. Id. Lastly, the Court stated that because the restrictive covenants were silent on the use of short-term rentals, any ambiguities regarding the proper use of the property must be resolved in favor of the Homeowners. Id at 5.

The issue of whether short-term vacation rentals of residential properties violate restrictive covenants requiring properties to be used for residential purposes and prohibiting use for business purposes was a case of first impression in Florida. Id. However, this issue has been resolved in a number of other states which have consistently held that short-term vacation rentals do not violate restrictive covenants under similar facts. Id. The 1st DCA, looking at these other cases, determined that the critical issue in such cases is not the duration of the rental but whether the renters of the property are using the property for ordinary living purposes such as eating and sleeping. Id at 6. The Court reasoned that the Association did not and could not allege that the Homeowners’ properties were being used by the renters for any nonresidential purposes and therefore, the Court upheld the ruling of the trial court in favor of the Homeowners. Id at 7.

See Santa Monica Beach Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Acord, 219 So. 3d 111, (Fla. 1st DCA, 2017). (pf)

Click here to read full opinion.

https://edca.1dca.org/DCADocs/2016/4782/164782_DC05_04282017_104637_i.pdf

The information you obtain through this article is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. This article intended to provide general legal updates. Information is current only as of the date indicated. Changes occur frequently and often the laws and statutes are complex and/or are difficult to follow and therefore we cannot be held responsible for any errors or misstatements or for any misunderstanding on your part. Thus, you are cautioned to use this information at your own risk. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. The proper answers to your legal problems will turn on your particular circumstances and thus you need to have competent legal advice tailored to those circumstances. Consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter which needs attention. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This article is not intended to be advertising and David S. Ged, PA does not wish to represent anyone based solely upon the reading/viewing of this article.

Add a comment
* Required
RSS Feed

Web feed